Editing Harrison Narcotics Tax Act (section)

==Congressional passage==
When [[United States House of Representatives|Representative]] [[Francis Burton Harrison]] of [[New York (state)|New York]] placed HR 1966 for debate before the full [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] on June 26, 1913, he began by noting that the [[Smoking Opium Exclusion Act of 1909]] failed to limit importation of opium because it regulated the maritime shipping industry, rather than the individual drug users. In Harrison's view, shipping companies could evade regulation by forging documents and smuggling opium across the [[Mexico–United States border]], whereas individual drug users would struggle to dispute their role in smuggling networks.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |date=26 June 1913 |title=House of Representatives |url=https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1913/06/26/house-section |journal=[[Congressional Record]] |volume=50 |issue=3}}</ref>

The [[Congressional Record]] showcases that the House was unsure whether the [[Commerce Clause]] actually permitted the federal government to restrict what types of goods could be exported, but the chamber adopted an expansive view based on [[Dictum|dicta]] from the 1904 [[Competition law|antitrust]] case ''[[Northern Securities Co. v. United States]]''. While the House agreed that the [[Export Clause]] clearly prohibits taxing exported opium, they were divided as to whether they could outright prohibit such exports. Though the 1906 [[Pure Food and Drug Act]] prohibited the importation of adulterated or misbranded food and drugs, that law was considered a product standard, whereas the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act would not allow any form of opium as imports or exports.<ref name=":0" /> Congress would not attempt another restriction on the types of goods that can be exported until the 1940 [[Export Control Act]].<ref name="rat" />

Representative [[Thomas U. Sisson]] of [[Mississippi]] objected to restricting the market for narcotics as encroaching on state [[Police power (United States constitutional law)|police power]] in violation of the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Tenth Amendment]]. Harrison admitted that the federal authority to tax those involved in the market for narcotics under the [[Taxing and Spending Clause]] was weak because the federal government stood to earn more in import taxes without this act. Surprisingly, Sisson and Harrison were in agreement that the bill would allow physicians to continue prescribing narcotics as part of medical treatment for those with [[substance use disorder]], yet the act's enforcement by the [[Commissioner of Internal Revenue]] frequently prosecuted such patients.<ref name="rat">{{cite book |last=Rowe |first=Thomas C. |title=Federal Narcotics Laws and the War on Drugs: Money Down a Rat Hole |publisher=Haworth Press |year=2006 |isbn=0-7890-2808-5}} p. 14-19</ref>